Category Archives: climate crisis

Jeffrey Simpson: The Greens Are Right

climate crisis, democracy and good government, green party

In a column in today’s Globe and Mail entitled The Greens are right: Use economic clubs to battle climate change, Jeffry Simpson is largely positive about our recently released climate plan. He doesn’t agree with everything we proposed, but he likes the plan enough to write:

Good for Canada’s Green Party. Last week, the Greens issued a policy to combat climate change that was the most arresting and innovative in Canada…

At the heart of the Greens’ climate-change policy is something as obvious as it is politically toxic: Economic tools are the best way to change behaviour. Subsidies and exhortation won’t cut it. Price changes and markets might, or will. So the Greens propose a carbon tax, at levels that would raise the cost of a litre of gasoline (and other carbon-emitting products) by 12 to 24 cents.

The Harper government, predictably, screamed “the mother of all tax increases,” forgetting the Greens also had suggested that the money raised from the carbon tax be offset by reductions in income and other taxes. The net tax effect would be neutral…

This is bold stuff, and better than anything on offer from the other political parties.

It’s heartening to get this kind of endorsement. Yet, just six months ago almost to the day, Simpson was referring to Green Party leaders as “eco-nuts.” I’m not sure where he meant for that comment to sit on the spectrum between disrespectful and playful. Regardless, his seeming change-of-heart surrounding our credibility reminds me of a story.

A few years ago I had the great fortune of spending several summers directing an outdoor skills leadership program for 15-year-olds. On the surface, we were teaching them what we called “hard skills,” like fire building, canoeing, navigation and cartography, first aid, etc. In reality, however, this was in many ways a pretense for teaching more broadly applicable life skills.

One of my favourite sessions we did with these campers went like this. We brought the group of 12 teens to a spot where one of our leaders, Bill, had laid out a long rope on the ground. In the middle, the rope loosely twisted and turned around on itself in all sorts of ways. Bill asked our campers a simple question: if we pull on either end of the rope, do you think it will form a knot in the middle, or will all of the twists and turns just slip over each other, leaving a straight rope with no knots?

Everyone was given a minute to examine the rope, without touching it, before making up their minds. Then, Bill asked us to spit into two groups. “If you think the rope will form a knot when we pull on both ends, stand on this side. If you don’t think it will form a knot, stand over here.” The group split in half almost perfectly.

“Ok,” explained Bill, “if you are absolutely sure that the rope will make a knot, I want you to go stand way over near this end of the rope. If you think it will probably make a knot but you’re less sure, stay on the same side, but don’t go as far. Same goes for the folks who are betting on there not being a knot.” Everyone was different degrees of “sure,” so they spread out in a line, parallel to the rope, so that the person who was most sure on the knot side was furthest from the person who was most sure on the not-knot side, with those who were less sure standing closer towards the middle.

“Now, Chris and I are going to start pulling on both ends of the rope. We’re going to do it slowly, until it either does or doesn’t form a knot. As we pull on the rope, I want you to move as your opinion changes. If you become more sure if your position, move further away from the middle. If you become less sure, move closer to the middle. If you change your mind completely, move to the other side.”

We started to pull the rope, and people started to move. This process lasted about fifteen seconds, and there was lots of back and forth. Eventually, all of the twists of the rope resolved themselves, no knot was formed, and Bill and I were left holding a straight rope between us. You’d think, then, at this point, that everyone would have ended up standing on the “no knot” side, since in the last few seconds it became very clear that a knot was not going to materialize. But that’s not what happened.

Why? Because the people who had decided they were 100% sure a knot was going to form had too far to walk. They couldn’t get to the other side in time. Some didn’t even try; they just stood at the other end of the room in disbelieve that they’d been proven wrong.

The moral of the exercise wasn’t, I don’t think, that we shouldn’t be sure about things, or take strong positions. But it’s important to recognize that, the more sure you are, the further you have to travel to get to the other side, and the harder it is to even see their perspective.

Again, I’m not sure how far along the other side of the “are the Greens credible?” rope Simpson was six months ago, but good on him for being open to movement. Maybe I should call up Bill and see if he’d be willing to do his rope activity for our Members of Parliament and other lifetime partisans. Couldn’t hurt.

Chris Tindal vs. Talk Radio

climate crisis, green party, toronto

Here it is folks. For the record, my first appearance as a commercial radio panelist, broadcast live this morning on AM640 in Toronto.

Chris Tindal on John Oakley Part 1 We talk about dog parks, dogs in general, and what they may or may not have to do with Muslims. I stay out of it as much as possible.

Chris Tindal on John Oakley Part 2 We talk about carbon taxes, and what they may or may not have to do with Paris Hilton.

Interestingly enough, everyone on the panel (plus I think John Oakley himself) liked the idea of a carbon tax in principal, but we did get into a discussion around the details. Since the Green Party is the only party advocating for a carbon tax at all, I take that as a good sign.

Enjoy!

Steal These Ideas

climate crisis, green party

When I wrote yesterday about (among other things) the need for higher gas prices, I actually had no idea that Elizabeth May was simultaneously holding a press-conference to announce the Green Party Climate Plan: A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe (PDF). But wow, talk about consistency of message. The plan proposes a $50 carbon tax, which would affect gas prices by about twelve cents.

I’m very proud to be associated with this bold plan (which isn’t just about gas prices, but is very detailed), and overall I’m pleased with the reaction to it as well. (Heck, even the Toronto Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein said we have to “give…Elizabeth May credit” for being the only party leader willing to “actually [state] the painfully obvious.”) It’s telling that the biggest criticism being voiced so far is not about if this is a good plan or not, but instead if it’s a good or bad way to get votes. I talked a lot about that yesterday as well, but Elizabeth also responded to that concern in an online globeandmail.com discussion this afternoon (in fact, it was the first question):

The Green Party sees its role as advancing the right solutions — even if they are not immediately politically popular.

When all the other parties pander toward what they believe Canadians want, it’s no wonder that so many citizens demand leadership. Leadership is taking stands and advancing solutions that really make sense, before they become ‘flavour of the month.’

The second question, predictably, was from someone who was supportive of the plan, but wanted to make sure the revenue from the carbon tax would be used to reduce other taxes. Yes, Elizabeth explained, it would. This is not actually a tax increase, as some would have you believe. It is, instead, a tax shift, which would result in lower income and payroll taxes.

The third question, like clockwork, questions the plan’s effect on the economy. Elizabeth responds:

I have found that corporate Canada is innovative and able to adjust to a changing business climate once the signals are clear and the rules of the game are clear.

On the climate issue, this has not been the case. Previous and current ministers talk one line to gain votes, leave industry confused and then back off real action, often with the result of punishing the leaders and rewarding the laggards.

On the acid rain issue, 20 years ago, the government made the rules of the game clear. Sulphur dioxide emissions had to be reduced by 50 per cent on a set time table. Industry protested, but then got down to the business of business.

Companies like Inco actually increased profits once they realized that tantrums and threats were not persuasive in moving the government from its goals. The necessity of meeting the emission reduction goals drove new technologies. Inco captured the sulphur in the smokestack and sold the captured sulphur, improving their bottom line.

Putting a cost on carbon will have the same effect on business today. Some of the most successful corporations in the world have already proven that reducing emissions increases profits. IBM, Dupont, Alcan — to name a few — have all more than met Kyoto targets while saving millions. Many global corporations are very accustomed to carbon taxes.

The four most competitive and productive economies in the European Union all have carbon tax regimes.

Most unique about the whole thing was Elizabeth’s plea to Stephen Harper and all other parties (the Green Party of Canada is currently the only federal party advocating for a carbon tax) to “please steal these ideas.” Conventional wisdom says parties shouldn’t release major plans outside of an election period, because then other parties will steal them and get the credit. What Elizabeth is actually indicating, then, is that we don’t care about the credit, we just want to make sure the job gets done. Good on her.

The Triple E Crisis, Plus

climate crisis, conservative party, democracy and good government, economy, energy, green party, liberal party, ndp

Last Friday the NDP sent out their fifth e-mail newsletter in a row (update: sixth, seventh) complaining about gas prices, saying that Canadians are “victims,” getting “gouged” and “cheated” at the pumps. The implication, of course, is that if the NDP were in power they would make sure gas prices were lower. That might be a good way to get votes, but it’s completely irreconcilable with their claim to have a strong environmental platform. (I was going to let it slide after the first and second email, and I forgot about it after the third and fourth, but now that the fifth one has reminded me, I thought it was worth opening up the discussion.)

There’s a triple-E crisis at work here. Our Environmental crisis is, in fact, an Energy crisis that will become an Economic one if we don’t take the right kind of action. The problem, simply put, is that we’re using up too much stored solar energy (fossil fuels) too quickly. And it doesn’t take a doctorate in economics to understand that when something is cheaper, people use more of it less efficiently. When we use more fossil fuels less efficiently, we exacerbate the climate crisis while simultaneously using up what has been the source of almost all economic growth and prosperity in the past two hundred years.

Instead of acknowledging that reality, too many politicians focus on playing to the cameras. There’s a reason so many people have come to believe that politicians will say almost anything to get elected; it’s true. (In the last federal election, I used the fact that Greens recognize the need to end artificially low energy prices as an example of how we were an exception to that rule.) This is what Joe Trippi calls “transactional politics,” the process by which politicians offer promises (lower gas prices, lower taxes, more police) in exchange for your vote. It’s also what has led Mark Kingwell to declare that “politicians have become brokers of interest rather than leaders, and citizens reduce themselves to consumers of goods and services enjoyed in return for regular obedience to the tax code.”

The problem is that transactional politics exist in direct opposition to transformational politics–the kind of leadership that Kingwell (and, I suspect, most Canadians) pine for, and that we so desperately need in this time of crisis. That’s why the biggest threat to our quality of life (best case) and collective survival (worst case) is not the Triple E Crisis itself, but the lack of attention most citizens are paying to the complex political issues that confront us. Here, we add a fourth E, the Electorate. Democracy requires that we all take some responsibility for the direction of our government, yet many Canadians feel no such responsibility. We’re all too busy with too many other important things to be bothered by the mud-slinging PR exercise that politics has become. And that, I would argue, is what makes us more susceptible to things like Jack Layton’s claim that we pay too much for gas (never mind the fact that we pay way less than most other counties), Stephen Harper’s claim that there’s a foreign stripper epidemic that needs to be addressed (never mind the fact that only ten strippers immigrated to Canada last year), or Stéphane Dion’s claim that somehow there are “mega-bucks” to be made by taking action on Kyoto (acting is cheaper than not acting, but that doesn’t mean we’re all going to somehow magically get rich).

That’s why I take democracy itself so seriously. An engaged, informed electorate is the only way we’re going to solve the problems facing us. I have no doubt that the Canadian public is intelligent enough; we only need the will, and to direct our energies and attention to the right places.

Of course, there’s hope. The attempts of the status-quo parties to buy votes aren’t proving effective, to the point where the only party telling you what you don’t want to hear is the only one that’s up in the polls since the last election. It’s just like we were told in high school: just be yourself, the other kids will learn to like you for who you are soon enough.